Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:34:44.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Excavations at Tabara el Akrad, 1948–49

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Sinclair Hood
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Tell Tabara el Akrad lies about a twenty minute walk east of Atchana: to the north near the main road is Tell Akrad, and to the south the high conical Tell Saluq, now surmounted by a frontier post.

In the Atchana season of Autumn 1948 I visited the site and brought back samples of a hand-made burnished pottery, which was recognised by Sir Leonard Woolley as quite different from anything found either at Atchana or at the neighbouring Chalcolithic site of Tell Esh Sheikh. It therefore seemed desirable to make some investigation of the site in the hope of securing a representative collection of the pottery and establishing its position in the sequence of the plain. But it was already late in the season, and impossible to undertake anything as part of the regular work of the Expedition. For this reason I offered to make a small sounding at my own expense; to which plan Sir Leonard immediately acceded, and gave the fullest support and encouragement, providing equipment and every other facility for the work. Bay Ruhi Tekhan, Director of the Antioch Museum, kindly made all the necessary arrangements; and the sounding was carried out in five days early in December by Bay Baki Ögün and myself with ten men.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 1 , December 1951 , pp. 113 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 113 note 1 Braidwood, , “Mounds of the Antioch Plain” (O.I.P. XLVIII), 1937, p. 34Google Scholar and Map VII. But the pottery there attributed to Tell Saluq, entirely of Period XI, sounds as if it had come from Tabara.

page 113 note 2 Then in process of being excavated for the Atchana expedition by Bay Ahmet Dönmez, and shortly to be published in Belleten.

page 113 note 3 I am deeply grateful to Sir Leonard Woolley for constant help and advice at every stage of the work and in the preparation of the report; to Professor Childe for reading through the MS., and for offering many useful suggestions and references; to Miss Kathleen Kenyon for checking some Iron Age references; to Bay Ruhi Tekhan, Director of Antioch Museum, and to Bay Baki Ögün, who assisted in the excavation.

page 115 note 1 Metal was already in use, at least for trinkets, in the upper levels at Tell Esh Sheikh, which correspond to Tabara Level VII or earlier. Compare also the neighbouring Judeideh, where metal is reported from the pre-Khirbet Kerak Levels XII and XIII (Braidwood, , Mounds of the Antioch Plain, p. 7Google Scholar).

page 116 note 1 The northern origin of Khirbet Kerak ware has long been recognised, e.g. Fitzgerald, and Bache, , “Beth Shan: The Earliest Pottery,” Univ. Penn. Mus. J. XXIV.1. 1935, p. 18Google Scholar; Braidwood, , Mounds of the Antioch Plain, p. 55Google Scholar; Schaeffer, , Stratigraphie Comparée, p. 34 note 1, and p. 345Google Scholar.

page 116 note 2 For omphalos bases, e.g. Alişar, and the Chalcolithic pottery from Büyük Güllücek near Alaca (Bellelen XII, 1948, Pl. ciiiGoogle Scholar): for ribbed and fluted decoration, e.g. Alaca, Alişar, Kusura “B”, and even Thermi in Lesbos (Lamb, Thermi, Pl. xvii).

page 117 note 1 Koşay, H., Ausgrab. von Alaca Höyük (Ver. der Türk. Gesch.-Komm., V. Ser., Nr. 2a), Ankara 1944: Colour Plate at the endGoogle Scholar.

page 117 note 2 Found in 1943 and in the Museum at the site. But it appears to be quite isolated, and may perhaps be an import.

page 117 note 3 Kuftin, , “The Urartian Columbarium at the Foot of Ararat and the Eneolithic Stage of the Kur-Araks Basin,” Vestnik Gos. Muzeya Gruzi, XIIIGoogle Scholar B, Tiflis, 1943, with an English summary. This is a complete survey of the culture in question, apropos of a settlement mound at Igdir covered by a lava flow, into the top of which an Iron Age Urn Field (the Columbarium) had been intruded. This reference was brought to my notice by Sir Leonard Woolley.

page 117 note 4 Excavated by Dr. Hamit Koşay and Bay Kemal Turfan, and in the Ethnological Museum at Ankara. Bay Baki Ögün first noticed the resemblance between this pottery and that from Tabara, and kindly drew my attention to it, Cf. Türk Tarih Kongresi, III, pp. 165–170.

page 118 note 1 Dönmez, A. and Brice, W. C., “Distribution of Early Pottery in S.E. Turkey,” Iraq, XI, 1949, p. 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Compare also the account of excavations at the early mound of Tilkitepe on Lake Van, by Reilly, E. B., Türk Tarih, IV, 1940Google Scholar.

page 118 note 2 This invasion of the Khirbet Kerak people is, archaeologically at any rate, the most decisive and catastrophic event in Syria and Palestine before the end of the Bronze Age. The movement seems to be equivalent in scope to the Anatolian eruptions into Cilicia and perhaps Cyprus. If, as appears possible, it was also more or less contemporary, then it would be interesting to connect them. For the view that the Early Red Polished wares in Cyprus reflect an invasion from Anatolia contemporary with that of the Khirbet Kerak people into Syria, see Schaeffer, , Stratigraphie Comparée, p. 345Google Scholar seq. (But contrast Dikaios, , Archaeologia lxxxviii, p. 165Google Scholar seq., who emphasises the possibility of a native Cypriot origin for this pottery.) At Tarsus in Cilicia, pottery of “Anatolian” character occupies a long phase before the appearance of painted pottery akin to that from early levels at Atchana (Garstang, and Goldman, , “A Conspectus of Early Cilician Pottery,” A. J. A., LI, 1947, p. 382Google Scholar).

page 118 note 3 See the distribution map in Braidwood, , Mounds of the Antioch Plain, p. 55Google Scholar, Map XXII.

page 118 note 4 Schaeffer, , Stratigraphie Comparée, pp. 33 and 41Google Scholar.

page 118 note 5 Wright, , Pottery of Palestine from the Earliest Times to the End of the Bronze Age, 1937, p. 73Google Scholar. Two sherds from the middle and two from the lower layer 5 at Tell Sukas.

page 118 note 6 Ingholt, , Rapport Prélim, sur Sept Camps. de Fouilles à Hama, 1940, pp. 19–20Google Scholar, and Pl. V, 4 and 6.

page 118 note 7 Maxwell-Hyslop, , etc., “An Archaeological Survey of the Plain of Jabbul, 1939” (P.E.Q., 1942, p. 8Google Scholar).

page 118 note 8 Albright, , “The Jordan Valley in the Bronze Age,” A. A. S. O. R., VI for 1924–1925, p. 27Google Scholar.

page 118 note 9 Fitzgerald, and Bache, , Univ. Penn. Mus. J. XXIV, 1, 1935Google Scholar, Levels XII and XI.

page 118 note 10 Sukenik, , Archaeological Investigations at Affula, Jerusalem 1948Google Scholar, Pls. x and xi.

page 119 note 1 Shipton, , “Notes on the Pottery of Strata, VI–XX” (S. A. O. C. No. 17), 1938, p. 39Google Scholar. See also Megiddo II (O.I.P. LXII), 1948, Pl 5, 14Google Scholar.

page 119 note 2 Fitzgerald, , L. A. A. A. XXIII, 1936, p. 91Google Scholar. See also L. A. A. A. XXII, 1935, p. 155Google Scholar, and XIX, 1932, Pl. VI, 11, from Tomb “A”.

page 119 note 3 Parts of bowls recognised by Wright, , Pottery of Palestine, p. 73Google Scholar.

page 119 note 4 Braidwood, , Mounds, p. 7Google Scholar. The latest seal of Early Dynastic type came from about the middle of the period, while those of late Jemdet Nasr type occurred at the beginning. It is not clear whether the Khirbet Kerak ware appears at the beginning of the period or not.

page 119 note 5 Albright, , Archaeology of Palestine, 1949, pp. 74–77Google Scholar.

page 119 note 6 Wright, , Pottery of Palestine, p. 73Google Scholar and note 128 for Beth Shan. At Jericho Khirbet Kerak ware was found in Room 109 at a depth of c. 12.50, well above the apparently Layer III floor at 11.50 (L. A. A. A. XXIII, 1936, p. 91Google Scholar); and a Khirbet Kerak vase occurred in the very top of the deposit in Tomb “A”, which according to Wright seems to represent a late phase of Beth Shan XII (Pottery of Palestine, p. 75, and L. A. A. A. XIX, 1932Google Scholar, Pl. VI, 11).

page 119 note 7 Schaeffer has suggested (Stratigraphie, p. 36) that the invasion of the Khirbet Kerak people is in some way connected with the downfall of the Old Kingdom at the end of Dynasty VI. But this seems difficult to admit on the evidence available.

page 125 note 1 The bones were sent to Ankara, where they await examination.

page 125 note 2 Unless otherwise stated these numbers refer only to rims from Trench A. In the case of the commoner types especially it is quite possible that several fragments of rim from the same vase may have been included in the count.

page 125 note 3 cf. Lloyd, Seton, “Uruk Pottery” Sumer, IV, 1948Google Scholar, Pl. I (Red Ware), 5, from Uruk.

page 125 note 4 cf. Nineveh, III (L. A. A. A. XX, 1933Google Scholar, Pl. xlix, 18, and p. 163), for black burnished as a variety of the characteristic grey burnished wares of this level.

page 125 note 5 Round-bottomed bowls of this shape are very common at Jericho in Levels VI–VII of E.B.I. (L. A. A. A. XXIII, 1936, p. 98Google Scholar, and Pl. xxxvi).

page 127 note 1 Level IV is bound to contain a good many stray sherds from earlier levels owing to the large amount of spoil which would have been thrown up in digging the granary pits (Pits 3–10).

page 127 note 2 e.g. Palestine. Jericho, Layer IV of E. B. II (L. A. A. A. XXII, 1935, Pl. xxx, 19 and 20Google Scholar; XXIII, 1936, Pl. xxxviii, 1–3). el Farah, Tel (Rev. Biblique, 1949)Google Scholar, Tomb 2 (Fig. 6, 7); Tomb 5 (Fig. 8, 3), which is called “Aeneolithic”, but contains high loophandled pitchers of the kind regarded by Wright as characteristic of his E. B. I. b (Pottery of Palestine, p. 60)Google Scholar. Probably related are the bowls from Shan, Beth XIV–XIII (Univ. Penn. Mus. J., XXIV, Pl. V, 21 and 22Google Scholar), and Megiddo, Stages IV–III of the E. Slope which correspond to Level XVIII of the Main Mound (S. A. O. C. No. 10, Type 22b; No. 17, p. 41), although in the examples figured the rim leans inwards.

Syria. Hama, Level K, immediately below the horizon with Khirbet Kerak ware (Ingholt, , Rap. Prélim, sur Sept Camps. de Fouilles, 1940, Pl. IV, 1, and p. 18Google Scholar, where it is said that some are carinated).

Mesopotamia. Grai Resh (Lloyd, S., “Uruk Pottery,” Sumer, IV, 1948Google Scholar, Fig. 2, 50, and 56). Nineveh, III–IV (L. A. A. A. XX, 1933, Pl. xlix, 6 and pp. 164 and 167Google Scholar). Nasr, Jemdet (A.J.A., 1935, Pl. xxxvi, 36, and p. 312Google Scholar, all with a red wash on the outside).

page 127 note 3 Compare for example a copper bowl of exactly this shape figured by Emery, , Great Tombs of the First Dynasty, 1949Google Scholar, Fig. 14, 6.

page 128 note 1 cf. Megiddo, Stages V–IV, (S. A. O. C, No. 10, Type 22c).

page 128 note 2 For the wide-bellied shape, cf. Lloyd, S., “Uruk Pottery”, Sumer, IV, 1948Google Scholar, Figs. 1 and 2, both Red and Grey ware.

page 128 note 3 See Lloyd, S., “Uruk Pottery,” Sumer, IV, 1948Google Scholar, Fig. 1 and 2. In particular for d, cf. Fig. 1, 36; for e, cf. Fig. 2, 16; for g, cf. Figs. 1, 39 and 2, 2–3.

page 129 note 1 For similar motives on pottery of the Uruk-Jemdet Nasr periods in Mesopotamia, see Mallowan, , “Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar,” Iraq, IX, 1947Google Scholar, Pl. xliv.

page 129 note 2 cf. Nasr, Jemdet, A. J. A., 1935Google Scholar, Pl. xxx, 1–3, xxxvi, 11–24.

page 132 note 1 This may of course be due to local accident; but the same tendency was noticed in the surface levels at Tell Esh Sheikh.

page 132 note 2 Mallowan, and Rose, , “Excavations at Tall Arpachiyah 1933,” Iraq, II, 1935Google Scholar. For Tell Esh Sheikh, see p. 113, note (2).

page 133 note 1 The classical publication of Khirbet Kerak ware is Fitzgerald, and Bache, , “Beth Shan: the Earliest Pottery”, Univ. Penn. Mus. J. XXIV. 1., 1935Google Scholar. But since in Beth Shan Levels XII–XI other kinds of pottery were found besides Khirbet Kerak, certain types, such as bowls of Type 16 and lids of Type 21, are not clearly distinguished as belonging to the Khirbet Kerak complex. For a good assemblage of Palestinian Khirbet Kerak ware, see Sukenik, E. L., “Archaeological Investigations at Affulah,” Journ. of the Pal. Oriental Soc., XXI, Jerusalem 1948Google Scholar.

page 133 note 2 cf. Beth Shan, Pl. VIII, 7, from Level XI; and Affulah, Pl. X, 18–20. A somewhat similar shape appears at Alişar, (O. I. P. XXVIII, Fig. 70, c. 2747Google Scholar), from Level XII (the top Chalcolithic level) of the mound; but this has a flat bottom, although sunk bases occur on other types of vases from the same horizon.

page 133 note 3 Rims of this type from bowls of red burnished ware are common in the Copper Age levels at Alişsar (O. I. P. XXVIII, Fig. 175).

page 134 note 1 cf. Beth Shan, p. 16, and Pl. VIII, 9, from Level XII: but on p. 13 it is implied that bowls of this type appear as early as Level XIV. The type is, however, included as Khirbet Kerak by Sukenik, Y., “On the Technique of Khirbet Kerak ware,” B. A. S. O. R. 106, 1947Google Scholar (his type 5): see also Affulah, Pl. X, 8 and 10–17. An entirely characteristic example from the Copper Age levels at Alaca Hüyük was found in 1943 and is in the Museum at the site.

page 134 note 2 cf. Affulah, Pl. X, 1–2.

page 134 note 3 Some, at any rate, of these rims may belong to squat jars or bowls of the type figured from Beth Shan, Pl. VII, 2–4.

page 135 note 1 cf. Beth Shan, p. 19, and Pl. VII, 5 and 7, from Level XII; Affulah, Pl. X, 5 and 6, Pl. XI, 1; Hama (Ingholt, , Rapport Prélim, sur Sept Camps, de Fouilles, 1940, Pl. V, 4Google Scholar). Compare also an example from the Chalcolithic site of Büyük Güllücek near Alaca (Belleten XII, 1948Google Scholar, Pl. CIII).

page 135 note 2 cf. Beth Shan, p. 19 and Pl. X, 1; Affulah, Pl. XI, 3–6. Rather similar is a Chalcolithic example from Alişar (O. I. P. XXVIII, Fig. 77, 5).

page 136 note 1 cf. Beth Shan, Pl. VIII, 11, from Level XII, in red burnished ware.

page 137 note 1 Cf. Lloyd, S. “Uruk Pottery”, Sumer, IV, 1948, Fig. 3 and p. 48Google Scholar.

page 137 note 2 It has recently been argued that the black surface is a mistake owing to the use of the vases over a fire (Sukenik, Y., “On the Technique of Khirbet Kerak ware,” B.A.S.O.R. 106, 1947, p. 9Google Scholar): but see Albright's sensible remarks on p. 17, note 1, of the same article.

page 138 note 1 cf. Shan, Beth (Univ. Penn. Mus. J. XXIV), p. 19Google Scholar and Pl. VII, 9, 12, etc., which seem to be similar.

page 139 note 1 Univ. Penn. Mus. J. XXIV, Pl. X, 14 and 18, and p. 17–18Google Scholar, where it is suggested that these objects were used as “fenders” in front of the hearth, perhaps with a cooking pot resting on the knobs.

page 140 note 1 A fragment of a figured “centrepiece” is reproduced (O.I.P. XXVIII, Fig. 100, e: 1732) from the Chalcolithic Level 13; but it is suggested that it may have intruded from the Copper Age levels above. To the Copper Age belongs another figured “centrepiece” (Fig. 183, d: 1683), and various fragments of “feet” shown in Fig. 205, including e: 858 which has a lateral knob. In the Early Bronze Age these “andirons” are said to be frequent, and sometimes relatively large; but all those reproduced are of the simple horseshoe type, without a raised “centrepiece” or “feet”, although one (Fig. 278) has a handle at the back. There is a similar simple horseshoe-like “stand” in Antioch Museum labelled as from Judeideh VI. This type may therefore represent a later development of the figured “stands” as found at Tabara, etc.

The “horns” from Kusura in Pisidia (Archaeologia 86, 1936, p. 37Google Scholar, and Fig. 17), are much larger and different in detail, and probably in function, from our “stands”; although they may have some ultimate connection with them, since they seem to be associated with hearths. All hose found belong to Kusura “C,” which succeeds the Copper Age Culture of “B”. For orthodox “horns of consecration” in clay from North Mesopotamia, apparently of Jemdet Nasr, date see Mallowen, “Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar,” Iraq, IX, 1947, p. 184Google Scholar, and Pl. XXXIX, who connects them with the “horns” from Kusura, etc.

page 140 note 2 Kuftin, , The Urartian Columbarium at the Foot of Ararat and the Eneolithic Stage of the Kur-Araks Basin, Tiflis, 1943Google Scholar, Fig. 74, 1.

page 140 note 3 cf. Mallowan, , “Excavations at Tall Chagar Bazar,” Iraq, III, 1936, Fig. 10, 16–17Google Scholar, from Level 5, which seems to correspond to the late Jemdet Nasr or Early Dynastic period (ib. p. 10).

page 142 note 1 cf. the “squat handleless pots” from Tell Beit Mirsim “A” (Early Iron II) (A. A. S. O. R. XII, p. 86Google Scholar and Pl. 67, 20–26).

page 142 note 2 In Antioch Museum there are several vases of this type and fabric from Tainat and Judeideh labelled as from “Judeideh VI” (between 1600 and 1200 according to Braidwood, , Mounds, p. 6Google Scholar). Side spouted vases, but almost always with a strainer spout, are characteristic at Megiddo from Level VI (the earliest Iron Age level) onwards (e.g. Megiddo II, p. 19Google Scholar and Pl. 75).

page 142 note 3 Jars of this type seem to be characteristic of Strata IV–III (Middle Iron) at Megiddo (see Megiddo I, Pl. 3, 74).

page 142 note 4 These vases appear to be imports from Cyprus. They occur at Tell Beit Mirsim (A. A. S. O., R. XII, Pl. 51, 9, and p. 72Google Scholar), where it is argued that in Palestine they are only found in Early Iron I and the beginning of Early Iron II, not later than the 9th century. But at Megiddo they seem to be distributed throughout the Early Iron II–Middle Iron Strata IV–III (e.g. Megiddo I, Pl. 5, 123).

page 143 note 1 A cooking pot of similar fabric with the same type of handle in Antioch Museum is labelled as from El Mina, Level IX.

page 144 note 1 cf. The “Canaanean” industry of the Early Bronze Age at Jericho. L. A. A. A. XXII, 1935, p. 176Google Scholar, Pl. lvi, 2, etc.

page 146 note 1 Several seals of this type were recovered from the upper levels at Tell Esh Sheikh.

page 146 note 2 cf. Megiddo I, Pl. 94, 8 and 53, from Level III of the Middle Iron Age (780–650 B.C.).

page 147 note 1 Such sling bullets, both in clay and stone, were very common in the upper levels at Tell Esh Sheikh.